Table 4.
Proportion of soda selection: linear mixed model effects
| Difference in the proportion of soda selection | Unit of analysis: parishes | Unit of analysis: mass attendants | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | Adjusteda | Unadjusted | Adjusteda | |
| Proportion of soda selection in the control group at baseline | 59.3 (53.4; 65.2) | 87.4 (28.5; 146.3) | 58.7 (52.8; 64.6) | 77.8 (37.4; 118.2) |
| Between intervention and control group, at baseline | 0.7 (−7.7; 9.0) | 1.2 (−5.5; 7.9) | 1.0 (−7.3; 9.3) | −3.7 (−13.6; 6.1) |
| Between Week 1 and baseline, in the control group | 4.5 (−0.1; 9.0) | 4.5 (−0.1; 9.0) | 5.2 (0.1; 10.2) | 5.2 (0.1; 10.2) |
| Between Week 3 and baseline, in the control group | 8.9 (4.3; 13.5) | 8.9 (4.3; 13.5) | 10.1 (5.1; 15.1) | 10.2 (5.2; 15.2) |
| Between Week 1 and baseline, in the intervention group | −3.7 (−8.3; 0.8) | −3.7 (−8.3; 0.8) | −3.7 (−8.5; 1.2) | −3.7 (−8.5; 1.2) |
| Between Week 3 and baseline, in the intervention group | 2.7 (−1.9; 7.2) | 2.7 (−1.9; 7.2) | 3.3 (−1.6; 8.1) | 3.2 (−1.6; 8.1) |
| Between intervention and control group, at Week 1 | −7.5 (−15.9; 0.8) | −7.0 (−13.7; −0.2) | −7.8 (−16.2; 0.6) | −12.6 (−22.5; −2.7) |
| Between intervention and control group, at Week 3 | −5.6 (−13.9; 2.8) | −5.0 (−11.7; 1.7) | −5.9 (−14.2; 2.5) | −10.7 (−20.6; −0.8) |
| (Week 1 minus baseline, in the intervention group) minus (Week 1 minus baseline, in the control group) | −8.2 (−14.6; −1.7) | −8.2 (−14.6; −1.7) | −8.8 (−15.8; −1.8) | −8.9 (−15.9; −1.9) |
| (Week 3 minus baseline, in the intervention group) minus (Week 3 minus baseline, in the control group) | −6.2 (−12.7; 0.2) | −6.2 (−12.7; 0.2) | −6.9 (−13.8; 0.1) | −6.9 (−13.9; 0.0) |
Bold estimates are statistically significant (p < .05).
aAdjusted for the frequency of weekly attendance to mass and the frequency of daily pray in the parish (variables collected at the formative evaluation).